Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Are you interested in participating in the Jihad Awareness Project (to mail Spencer's new book to the U.S. Senate and Congress) that I've mentioned in the comments threads at Jihadwatch.com and other sites? If you are, send an email to me at traehnam[at]yahoo.com under the subject heading "Senate", and in the email tell me what state your senator represents, an email address where I can reach you, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I'll never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers on this project.

Once we have volunteers to cover all 100 senators (and many representatives), we can coordinate our timing so we all mail Robert Spencer's new book to Congress simultaneously.

You can volunteer even if we already have two volunteers for your state, because then we can begin to cover not only the Senate, but the House of Representatives also. For example, we currently have eight volunteers from Florida. The more the merrier.

To easily find the names and addresses of your congresspersons, click onthis link.

By the way, a volunteer from the state of Indiana was able to sign up to send a book because of generous help from Gabrielle, of Australia. Thank you, Gabrielle!

And another volunteer from Florida will have the book in time to send because of the generosity of Ian, also from Australia. Thank you Ian! Way to go Australia!

And Ken, of Texas, is not only participating himself, but has also made it possible for a worthy college student to join us. Thanks Ken!

And a foreigner whose nation shall remain unnamed has been very generous in donating two copies of the DVD: "Islam: What the West Needs To Know," so that two budget-strapped volunteers will be able to include it with the book. Thank you JK!!! (Many volunteers will be including that powerful DVD in their packages to Congress.)

Here's the current list of sign-ups as of 3:30 PM, Saturday, October 27.

Earlier I had people leaving their email addresses in the public comments thread for this post, but one commenter to whom I'm thankful pointed out that wasn't optimal from a privacy standpoint. So that's why I'm now asking people to email me at traehnam[at]yahoo.com instead. I've now deleted any public comments that contained email addresses. To those of you whose comments were deleted: I did record in a "secure, undisclosed location" your email addresses and other data, so you need not send them to me again.

Another commenter to whom I'm thankful suggested I should reassure potential volunteers that I will never send out a group email reply unless I'm certain I can do that without revealing the roster of email addresses to the group. So let me be clear: if you get an email reply from me, the only email address you'll see will be mine. The only way other volunteers on this project will know your email address is if you give it to them.

Brian and Richard, great that you are in. Jihad Watch gets thousands of visitors every day. I'll keep posting this project there. I think we have a good chance to collect two from every state. I'm from New York. I'd post at LGF, but registration is almost always closed there. But I'll be posting about this project in various places. -- traeh

Traeh - of course. We all need to keep in mind we are heading into a different world.

We HAVE been infiltrated and there is a very competent, well oiled machine in play that if it does not offer physical intimidation, it certainly promises personal destruction at the hands of legal terrorism in a court room.

I am not suggesting or condoning cowardice in the face of this - just caution and well thought out tactics.

Our legislators are clearly cowards and are only going to take the route of least resistance. Maybe one day America will be more important than a re-election campaign - but we are far from that now.

Your efforts, I think, will help that along. I applaud you and wish this project success.

anonymous from Virginia -- welcome, and good point. I'll tell people to send their email addresses, state, and a nickname to me at traehnam@yahoo.com, under subject heading "Senate Project", rather than make the email addresses public on this comments thread. Would that work for you anonymous from Virginia?

I've now copied and saved all email addresses and other info posted in the comments thread here and have deleted any comments in which people posted their emails. That way privacy will be protected.

I was driving home from work and came up with an idea. Would a similar drive be good for talk radio and tv personalities like O"Reilly be worth it. The media is powerful, as much as our Congress. They can reach alot of households that could influence people to pressure their congressmen. Just a thought.

Richard, I'm not sure. Worth considering for the future. Might be especially relevant for the smaller talk radio and television figures, those with small local audiences. I gather the big talk radio guys have staffs that already help a lot with research. I suspect that Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest will be reading Spencer's book right about now...

Traeh - a question about your project. If you get a bunch of private emails from people and then you want to send out a big group email to all 50 or more volunteers in order to coordinate their activities, would the privacy of their email addresses be protected (from eachother) if you emailed yourself in the subject line but listed all the email addresses of the volunteers under "bcc" - ie.e blind copy? That way, noone sees the email addresses of any other participants? (Just thinking of ways that would encourage more participation by ensuring the complete privacy of those who email you. I guess there is also something along the lines of "Group Distribution" which also shields the recipients of an email from the email addresses of others recipients.) Perhaps if you made that clear, it might encourage more participation. I bring this up because it has come to my recent attention that there are certain rather dangerous and genuinely fascist "cyberstalkers" who wouldn't be beyond signing on to the project merely to have access to others' email addresses, in order to chase them down and try to publicly "out" them as "hatemongers". Anything you can do to guarantee the privacy of participants email addresses (even from other participants in the project) will certainly go far in increasing participation in the project overall.

Caroline --You make a good point. I'll make sure not to pool the group's email addresses. When I reply to a member of the group, that member will not see anyone else's email address but mine.

And I'll say something about that in future solicitations for volunteers for this project.

Privacy needs to be assured to the max for various reasons, including potential violence by jihadists against people involved. This project, as I know you know, has nothing to do with hate. It's about doing what we can to slow down a totalitarian movement.

Honestly, I dont think many of the big time talk radio hosts get it. The only one I have heard that has convinced me he gets it is Neal Boortz. I know Hannity and Glenn Beck believe Islam was highjacked and hearing Lauern Green on Fox and Friends speak her ignorance on Islam was disturbing. But we can cross that road once we finish this project. I also see we have another Floridian. Now we can decide which idiot to send it to. :-)

Ok Richard, could be worthwhile to go that way. As you say, we'll see after we've done with this current project.

What would be good now is to research the best way to get senators to pay the maximum possible attention to the mailing. I'm looking into that and giving that some thought, and others could research that question also.

Caroline, welcome to the group, and thanks very much for the privacy suggestion, which I've incorporated.

You want to know something: Any ignorant bigot can spread irrational fear, hatred, prejudice and threats of violence against Islam.

Robert Spencer's audience is uneducated, scared, ignorant and potentially violent American Christian fundamentalists.

These are the people who want to drop nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina. These are the ignorant bigots who want to deny civil rights to American citizens (who happen to be Muslim).

These are the ignorant people who claim that their own religion is a religion of peace while they celebrate the murder of Muslims and salivate at the thought of committing genocide against a billion Muslims.

Americans are such bloodthristy, violent people that I am quite certain that they are capable of committing such an act. Adolf Hitler was a Christian, a child of civilized Europe, and it seems like his followers are alive & well in the USA.

May God have mercy on America's bloodthirsty Christian fundamentalists.

anonymous you said:Christians have a long history of violence, warfare, oppression and genocide.

You miss the point. Everyone, including Christians, behaves badly at times. But Christians can't find support for their evil deeds in the New Testament. Instead they find council to turn the other cheek and love their enemies. Muslims who want to find support for evil deeds can find such support in substantial parts of the Qur'an and in the canonical Islamic traditions about Muhammad's life.

You also miss the main distinction between what Christianity teaches and what Islam teaches about government. The main figure of the New Testament is reputed to have said "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." That and many other statements attributed to Christ have led, over many centuries, to a separation of religion and state in large parts of the modern world. Yes, there have been some fascistic people who called themselves Christians, but they couldn't justify their fascistic behavior by means of the New Testament.

And while Christ is reputed to have said "My kingdom is not of this world," and to have separated the realm of God from that of Caesar, Muhammad did something very different. He became Caesar. He united the spiritual and political into one. That is a significant part of why Muslim-majority countries often suppress religious freedom and discriminate heavily against non-Muslims. Yes, every state in the world perpetrates at least some discrimination against this or that minority group, but Islamic countries are often particularly bad in that respect. And that's not just my opinion; one need only check the data gathered from around the globe by human rights groups, such as Freedom House, in order to discover that Muslim-majority nations constitute the most backward group in the world in terms of political rights and civil liberties. Even in relatively liberal Indonesia, life for non-Muslims can be restricted, harrassed, and dangerous. And there are large groups of Indonesian Muslims who seek to implement Islamic law there.

Islamic law, which is dictatorial, is of course not always enforced, even in the most Islamic nations, but non-Muslims living in a majority-Muslim nation must always be concerned that Islamic law one day will be enforced. There are always significant groups pushing for it, and large parts of the Muslim population who support it. And even in Islamic nations not very subject to Islamic law, non-Muslims are easily victimized, because when victimized they often find it difficult, dangerous, and unwise to seek recourse from the Muslim-dominated legal system under which they live, even in the absence of explicit Islamic law. Even in the absence of overt Islamic law, Muslim-dominated legal systems frequently discriminate quite viciously against non-Muslims.

There are many moderate and fine Muslims, but there are also a great many Muslims who believe in spreading Islamic law all over the globe. The latter Muslims can find strong justification in the Qur'an and canonical Hadith for their global totalitarian project. So far, no large mainstream Muslim group has sought to protest or challenge the interpretation of Islam that says Allah wants a caliphate to spread Islamic law over the whole planet.

All the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence support the death penalty for adult male Muslims who decide to leave Islam. There is apparently some dispute among the schools about whether only males are subject to capital punishment for apostasy.

Capital punishment for apostasy is based on statements by Muhammad, for example, when he said, "If someone changes his Islamic religion, kill him." That and many other similar acts and statements strongly distinguish Muhammad from Christ.

One certainly need not believe in Christianity to acknowledge that the advice given by the main figure in the New Testament and the advice given by Muhammad/Qur'an are different and lead to different social outcomes.

Those in the non-Muslim world must understand these things and pursue every reasonable and ethical course of action to defend their cultures -- whether Buddhist, atheist, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, etc.-- from the spread of Islamic law.

And moderate, decent Muslims must do what it takes to demonstrate that they are prepared to live permanently on an equal basis with non-Muslims: publicly reject the parts of the Qur'an and of Muhammad's life that advocate jihad, Islamic law, and Islamic supremacism.

Are you the ignorant, uneducated bigot who is responsible for this blog?

Well ... I am impressed. Spreading hate and irrational fear against the Muslims. Advocating persecution, oppression and violent against the Muslims. Applauding warfare and approving of violence against the Muslims.

And yet you claim that Islam is the world's violent religion!

You don't follow a religion of peace. You are a bloodthirsty warmonger who would destroy America's constitution in order to deprive Muslims of their civil rights.

God help up if you and Robert Spencer and America's other "little Hitlers" ever gained political power over the United States.

You people are murderous thugs. You people are American terrorists. You people are genocidal fanatics.

> "But Christians can't find support for their evil deeds in the New Testament. Instead they find council to turn the other cheek and love their enemies."

Your ignorance is staggering, sir. Have you read the Bible?

You know ... the whole Bible. Not just the New Testament.

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the waywhile he was coming up from Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put him to death both man and woman, child and infant" (1 Samuel 15:2).

This is the same Bible which inspired the Christians of America to perform a similar act of genocide against the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Man, woman, infant and child vaporized by the thousands by the righteous peace-loving Christians of the USA.

> "That and many other statements attributed to Christ have led, over many centuries, to a separation of religion and state in large parts of the modern world."

Oh my, your ignorance of history is astonishing. Christian Europe was officially Christian (with state-sponsored denominations and actual conflicts inspired by denominational differences) for the entire length of time that Europe remained Christian.

The separation of church and state remains incomplete even now in secular Europe. But since most Europeans have abandoned the bloody religion it doesn't make much of a difference today.

In the United States, the constitutional separation of church and state was a direct byproduct of European religious violence. Christianity was such a poisonous influence upon government that the founding fathers felt it necessary to separate religion and state, and they were wise in doing so.

> "And while Christ is reputed to have said "My kingdom is not of this world," and to have separated the realm of God from that of Caesar, Muhammad did something very different. He became Caesar. He united the spiritual and political into one. That is a significant part of why Muslim-majority countries often suppress religious freedom and discriminate heavily against non-Muslims."

Oh my. The person who is calling for oppressing America's Muslims and destroying the Islamic religion wants to talk about the suppression of religious freedom and discrimination.

The irony is just ... so ironic!

> "One certainly need not believe in Christianity to acknowledge that the advice given by the main figure in the New Testament and the advice given by Muhammad/Qur'an are different and lead to different social outcomes."

Are you purposefully ignorant of European history are you merely uneducated?

Don't you know that the Bill of Rights was formulated within the context of the Christian oppression and persecution of religious minorities?

You know ... the very behaviors which you are presently advocating!

> "And moderate, decent Muslims must do what it takes to demonstrate that they are prepared to live permanently on an equal basis with non-Muslims: publicly reject the parts of the Qur'an and of Muhammad's life that advocate jihad, Islamic law, and Islamic supremacism."

God have mercy upon any Muslim who takes religious advice from a bigot filled with prejudice, hated and irrational fear.

Dave Mathews, hello. We seem to have a disagreement, but I welcome that.

I said:"But Christians can't find support for their evil deeds in the New Testament. Instead they find council to turn the other cheek and love their enemies."

You replied:

Your ignorance is staggering, sir. Have you read the Bible?

You know ... the whole Bible. Not just the New Testament.

Then, Dave, you quote the Old Test:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the waywhile he was coming up from Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put him to death both man and woman, child and infant" (1 Samuel 15:2)."

My reply:I’m aware of the violence in the Old Testament. However, I won’t call you staggeringly ignorant, even though you seem unaware of the critical distinction between Old Testament violence and that in the Qur’an, which is this. Unlike the Old Testament (which for Christians is in important respects superseded by the New Testament, a fact you pass over) the Qur’an contains open-ended calls for warfare against all unbelievers, on into the future. The Qur’an’s violence is prescriptive. Old Testament violence contains no such open-ended command to make war on and dominate all unbelievers. The violence in the Old Testament is descriptive. “God” told the Jews to commit massacres of such and such people. That is certainly disturbing and I’m not by any means saying that’s above criticism. But the question is the relevance of that to the present day. Jews cannot turn to the Old Testament and declare that it commands all unbelievers be brought under Judaic law, by force, stealth, or persuasion. Quranic violence and the violence of Muhammad’s life are relevant to the present day, precisely because the Quran and Hadith and Muhammad’s bio contain an open-ended call to spread Islamic law all over the world, by force, by stealth, and by persuasion. Perhaps you will see the distinction as unimportant. I’ll have to respectfully disagree, until I see better reason to change my views on this.

You, Dave, said:

This is the same Bible which inspired the Christians of America to perform a similar act of genocide against the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Man, woman, infant and child vaporized by the thousands by the righteous peace-loving Christians of the USA.

My reply:Reasonable people can disagree, and have disagreed, about the ethics -- or lack of ethics -- in using a nuke on Imperial Japan during World War II. As far as I can see, the case is not a slam-dunk either way. Huge tomes, on both sides of the issue, have been written by brilliant people. Let me acknowledge that a society that calls itself Judeo-Christian can commit genocide. I never said otherwise. And that’s horrifying. But notice the following, which is also not irrelevant: we did not impose on the Japanese a theocracy, Christian, Jewish, or otherwise. In fact, the opposite: the U.S. tore the Shinto theocracy, root and branch, out of Japanese government, and restricted Shinto to private life.

You then quoted my statement:"That and many other statements attributed to Christ have led, over many centuries, to a separation of religion and state in large parts of the modern world."

And you, Dave, responded:

Oh my, your ignorance of history is astonishing. Christian Europe was officially Christian (with state-sponsored denominations and actual conflicts inspired by denominational differences) for the entire length of time that Europe remained Christian.

My reply:From the beginning of Christianity’s establishment in Rome, Christians, however imperfectly, have recognized some kind of articulation of two realms with different competencies, though it took a long time before people had any clear idea precisely wherein the dividing line between the two realms should be, based on the New Testament ethos and common sense. Partly because such a separation of realms was more or less unprecedented in history, and there was confusion about it, the “sacred” and “secular” realms have frequently battled each other for dominance during the course of European history. And each side has at times succeeded in dominating the other side. Yet usually both sides acknowledged that the other side had some sort of prerogatives. It was just that they disagreed about "what’s mine and what’s yours." In the Christian world there has virtually always been a long term trend toward distinguishing the two spheres. Let me also say that there has been frequent “Christian” discrimination against Jews and minorities during the course of European history. The point is the overall historical trend, insofar as that trend is influenced by the New Testament. And the New Testament does support a separation of religion and state, and does not support discrimination. The opposite is true of Islam, or so huge numbers of Muslims proudly claim. If you disagree with them about Islam, you should consider arguing with them, not me. Mind you, I don’t say all Muslims, perhaps not even most Muslims, feel that way. Many Muslims don’t even know what the Qur’an says.

You, Dave, say:The separation of church and state remains incomplete even now in secular Europe. But since most Europeans have abandoned the bloody religion it doesn't make much of a difference today.

My reply:I am aware the separation remains incomplete in Europe. It remains incomplete in the United States. But the point is, Europeans coming out of a Judeo-Christian tradition have concluded that, for the most part, it is just not the state’s business to interfere with religion. Even post-Christian Europe remains profoundly influenced by the New Testament’s separation of realms, though many no longer remember all the sources of the belief in that separation. By the way, perhaps half of European Muslims feel the same way and believe in a separation of religion and state. Unfortunately, that leaves the other half.

You, Dave, said:In the United States, the constitutional separation of church and state was a direct byproduct of European religious violence. Christianity was such a poisonous influence upon government that the founding fathers felt it necessary to separate religion and state, and they were wise in doing so.

My reply:Well, I’ll again have to respectfully disagree. People were not following the New Testament, i.e., Christianity, in trying to impose religion on each other by force of religious wars. It is precisely because Christians were not following Christianity that they fought wars whose purpose was to impose some version of Christianity by force. How can you correctly fight a religious war and at the same time follow Christ’s example? I don’t see it.

You, Dave, quoted me:“And while Christ is reputed to have said "My kingdom is not of this world," and to have separated the realm of God from that of Caesar, Muhammad did something very different. He became Caesar. He united the spiritual and political into one. That is a significant part of why Muslim-majority countries often suppress religious freedom and discriminate heavily against non-Muslims."

And then you, Dave, said:Oh my. The person who is calling for oppressing America's Muslims and destroying the Islamic religion wants to talk about the suppression of religious freedom and discrimination.

My reply:I am not calling for oppressing America’s Muslims. I am concerned about Muslim immigration to the U.S. I do think that Islam makes many Muslims, perhaps half of them, prone to seek the eventual imposition of Islamic law. I have noticed that polls of American Muslims indicate that huge numbers think suicide bombing can sometimes be warranted. I am aware of numerous polls of UK Muslims that show that about half support the introduction of Islamic law in the UK. Somewhere between 5 percent and 9 percent – that means between 80,000 and 140,000 UK Muslims -- support the use of terror against the UK. I’m also aware of polls showing that 1 percent, or some 16,000 UK Muslims, are “willing, or even eager” to participate in terrorist attacks against the UK. Currently, isn’t the UK government forced to keep some 2000 UK Muslims under surveillance as terrorist risks?

I am aware of what is happening in Europe, to some extent. I have read Bruce Bawer’s book, While Europe Slept. I don’t know if you are aware that Bawer has written books heavily critical of Christian fundamentalists. In fact Bawer moved to Europe in significant part because he did not like what he felt was the puritanical atmosphere of the U.S. He happens to be homosexual. But once he was living in Europe, Bawer was surprised and shocked to find that the influence of Islam there was huge, and far, far more troubling, in Bawer’s view, than Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. If you are as open-minded as I believe you are, Dave, you will read Bawer’s book. He may not be entirely correct, he may exaggerate to some extent, and I’m sure he doesn’t have the whole picture. No one does. But I don’t think you can read him and doubt that he has something valid and sincere to say about the totalitarian risks currently facing Europe as the Muslim population grows rapidly and the non-Muslim European population shrinks.

You, Dave, quote me:> "One certainly need not believe in Christianity to acknowledge that the advice given by the main figure in the New Testament and the advice given by Muhammad/Qur'an are different and lead to different social outcomes."

Then you answer:Don't you know that the Bill of Rights was formulated within the context of the Christian oppression and persecution of religious minorities?

My reply:The New Testament cannot honestly or correctly be used to promote oppression and persecution of religious minorities. Christians can only oppress religious minorities by deviating from the example and clear statements of Christ and by becoming bad Christians. The same is not true of Muslims in relation to Muhammad. Muhammad, according to Muslims, engaged in a good deal of violence, war, and theocracy, and ordered that “If someone changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” And Muhammad said that he had been commanded by Allah “to fight the people” until they all follow Islam. Again, if you wish, I’ll locate the references.

You, Dave, quote me:"And moderate, decent Muslims must do what it takes to demonstrate that they are prepared to live permanently on an equal basis with non-Muslims: publicly reject the parts of the Qur'an and of Muhammad's life that advocate jihad, Islamic law, and Islamic supremacism."

Then you, Dave, say:God have mercy upon any Muslim who takes religious advice from a bigot filled with prejudice, hated and irrational fear.

Man, don't you listen to your own self?

My reply:Well, sometimes I do fail to listen to myself, but in this particular case, I will have to respectfully disagree. Unless you can provide other arguments or evidence. Since, at least based on what I can see, I am not bigoted on this question, I must wonder if you are bigoted against me and my views, and treat me as a bigot because you have met other bigots and have chosen out of your emotions to group me with them, despite the fact that, as far as I can see, I am not like them. As for bigotry, I certainly don't have any problem with Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, animists, atheists, Jews, Christians or those of other religions immigrating to my country. My only difficulty is with Islam, because it's totalitarian elements are quite strong and quite active, and Islam is hugely ambitious.

You, Dave, say:You are advocating the very evils that you claim exist in Islam.

My reply:Not so. I say that Islam, though not all bad, does have as part of its core a totalitarian project to dominate the world and eliminate religious and intellectual freedom. I merely wish to defend that freedom from what, to me, seems to be a totalitarian movement. I don’t think that all methods of defense are allowable. But I do think a defense of some kind is necessary, and that people need to be alerted that Islam is different, in very troubling ways, from Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, Christianity, and Judaism. I fear it may be too late for European freedom to be saved, and that by the end of the century, as Muslims become a majority in Europe (under current trends, a majority is what Muslims will become) spiritual and intellectual freedom may disappear there.

I hope you will not ascribe to me the views others on this website or some other website may promote. In turn, I will not make assumptions about you. And yes, of course I’m ignorant. If I didn’t acknowledge that I don’t know everything, I wouldn’t be able to learn. We are all of us, you included, at least somewhat ignorant, and we all have things to learn.

I don’t know everything, but it’s quite possible I’ve done as much reading and study as you have, if not a great deal more. I’m not perfectly open-minded, but possibly as open-minded as you, if not more. If you want to get into verbal brawls with others here, feel free, but if you try it with me, I’ll just ignore you and start deleting your comments made in my direction. I’m interested in dialogue, when I have time for it, not insults and attacks. If you wish to respectfully disagree that’s fine.

Islam isn't half as violent as Christianity. Christians who claim otherwise must have forgotten the history of their own religion.

> I’m aware of the violence in the Old Testament. However, I won’t call you staggeringly ignorant, even though you seem unaware of the critical distinction between Old Testament violence and that in the Qur’an, which is this. Unlike the Old Testament (which for Christians is in important respects superseded by the New Testament, a fact you pass over) the Qur’an contains open-ended calls for warfare against all unbelievers, on into the future. The Qur’an’s violence is prescriptive. Old Testament violence contains no such open-ended command to make war on and dominate all unbelievers. The violence in the Old Testament is descriptive. “God” told the Jews to commit massacres of such and such people.

Huh?

Mr. Traeh, I have read both the Bible and the Qur'an numerous times. I can assure you that the Bible is more violent and also more graphically violent than the Qur'an.

Have you read the Bible?

The Bible is also graphically pornographic in places. The translators of the Bible have skillfully obscured such passages for the sake of the reader's moral superiority.

Now, I must ask you: Is genocide acceptable if the genocide is limited to exterminating the Amalekites?

Does the God you worship only want to kill all of the Amalekites? Is this the reason why your god is morally superior to Allah?

> Jews cannot turn to the Old Testament and declare that it commands all unbelievers be brought under Judaic law, by force, stealth, or persuasion. Quranic violence and the violence of Muhammad’s life are relevant to the present day, precisely because the Quran and Hadith and Muhammad’s bio contain an open-ended call to spread Islamic law all over the world, by force, by stealth, and by persuasion.

If this is the case, sir, exactly how is it possible that Christians have spread their religion all over the globe by these techniques in contrast to the Muslims?

The Christians committed genocide against the Native Americans, the Mayans and the Incas. They very nearly exterminated all of the cultures of the New World in their eagerness to impose Christianity by the sword.

The Muslims have never committed a crime against humanity of this magnitude throughout history. From Canada down to Tierra Del Fuego you will find the corpses of millions of native Americans murdered by Christians.

> Reasonable people can disagree, and have disagreed, about the ethics -- or lack of ethics -- in using a nuke on Imperial Japan during World War II. As far as I can see, the case is not a slam-dunk either way.

Huh? Are you serious?

Murdering 3,000 civilians in New York renders Islam the most violent religion in the history of the world.

vs.

Murdering 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is ... ok? Christianity is still the religion of peace, don't mind the vaporized corpses of Japanese children!

What sort of morality is this that justifies killing 200,000 civilians while condemning the killing of 3,000 civilians?

> But notice the following, which is also not irrelevant: we did not impose on the Japanese a theocracy, Christian, Jewish, or otherwise.

Okay. Vaporizing 200,000 Japanese wasn't so evil, then, was it?

Christians can drop nuclear bombs on civilians but we are still morally superior to the Muslims!

Treah, what is your opinion regarding those Americans who want to drop nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina?

> From the beginning of Christianity’s establishment in Rome, Christians, however imperfectly, have recognized some kind of articulation of two realms with different competencies, though it took a long time before people had any clear idea precisely wherein the dividing line between the two realms should be, based on the New Testament ethos and common sense. Partly because such a separation of realms was more or less unprecedented in history, and there was confusion about it, the “sacred” and “secular” realms have frequently battled each other for dominance during the course of European history. And each side has at times succeeded in dominating the other side. Yet usually both sides acknowledged that the other side had some sort of prerogatives. It was just that they disagreed about "what’s mine and what’s yours." In the Christian world there has virtually always been a long term trend toward distinguishing the two spheres.

It took Europe nearly two thousand years to separate the two realms -- church and state -- and it was expensive, too. Millions of Europeans were killed in religious wars throughout the entire era of bloody Christian political domination.

Europe didn't escape from the scourge of Christian violence until Europe escaped from Christianity. Today we finally have a secular Europe. Christianity has died in Europe.

> The point is the overall historical trend, insofar as that trend is influenced by the New Testament. And the New Testament does support a separation of religion and state, and does not support discrimination.

When the New Testament was written separation of church and state was imposed by means of Rome's status as a pagan superpower which could persecute and kill religious minorities such as the Jews and Christianity.

There was no separation between religion and state in Rome. The emporer was also a God.

It took Christianity several centuries to take over the Roman Empire. Christianity became the official religion of Rome and the Christians quickly began persecuting Jews and other religious minorities, a pattern of behavior which continued uninterrupted for two thousand years until it reached its apex in the Holocaust.

> If you disagree with them about Islam, you should consider arguing with them, not me. Mind you, I don’t say all Muslims, perhaps not even most Muslims, feel that way. Many Muslims don’t even know what the Qur’an says.

You don't know what the Qur'an says, sir. You are spreading lies & bigotry against a religion which you know nothing whatsoever about.

These lies are counterproductive, too. If you treat all of the Muslims as radicals you will succeed in uniting the entire Muslim world against America's violent Christian fundamentalist bigots.

If the Christians and Muslims want to fight, go ahead, just don't drag the rest of the world into your religious blood fued.

> Well, I’ll again have to respectfully disagree. People were not following the New Testament, i.e., Christianity, in trying to impose religion on each other by force of religious wars. It is precisely because Christians were not following Christianity that they fought wars whose purpose was to impose some version of Christianity by force. How can you correctly fight a religious war and at the same time follow Christ’s example? I don’t see it.

Europe experienced several centuries of Christian warfare prior to the settling of America.

How can Christians kill?

Very easily. All a Christian needs to kill is weapons. Christians invented plenty of weapons and advanced military technology in order to kill each other viciously and efficiently.

These are the tools of killing which Christianity used to conquer and colonize the entire world.

After the Christians had conquered the world, the Christians kept on killing. Europe plunged into decades of technological warfare which included the global bloodbaths of World War I and World War II.

> I am not calling for oppressing America’s Muslims. I am concerned about Muslim immigration to the U.S. I do think that Islam makes many Muslims, perhaps half of them, prone to seek the eventual imposition of Islamic law.

Remarkable. Are you certain of this or are you allowing your irrational fear to speak?

There are plenty of Christians who want to impose their fundamentalist beliefs and 19th-century morality and 17-century science upon the rest of the nation.

Should America expel these backward-thinking Christians? Should Americans force these Christians to stop reading the Bible and instead read Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species?

> Currently, isn’t the UK government forced to keep some 2000 UK Muslims under surveillance as terrorist risks?

The UK government keeps track of many potentially violent people and groups. The threat is not limited to Muslims.

The FBI also keeps track of many potentially violent people and groups. Included among these are some radical Christians who would impose their religion on others by violence. Are you aware of these groups?

> I am aware of what is happening in Europe, to some extent. I have read Bruce Bawer’s book, While Europe Slept. I don’t know if you are aware that Bawer has written books heavily critical of Christian fundamentalists. In fact Bawer moved to Europe in significant part because he did not like what he felt was the puritanical atmosphere of the U.S. He happens to be homosexual. But once he was living in Europe, Bawer was surprised and shocked to find that the influence of Islam there was huge, and far, far more troubling, in Bawer’s view, than Christian fundamentalism in the U.S.

Europe is scared of its Muslims. I see that Europe has resumed its tradition of hatred, prejudice and bigotry against religious minorities.

That's a two thousand year old habit which a bloody violent continent cannot break ...

Do you remember how Europe solved its Jew problem? Do you suppose that Europe should use a similar technique to solve its Muslim problem?

> But I don’t think you can read him and doubt that he has something valid and sincere to say about the totalitarian risks currently facing Europe as the Muslim population grows rapidly and the non-Muslim European population shrinks.

I have encountered his book and read several chapters. I am not impressed by his opinions. Even homosexuals can be ignorant bigots at times. That's all that Bawer demonstrates in his vile, hate-filled book.

As to the prospects of the Muslims conquering Europe: Good. The Europeans will finally experience the sorrows which they imposed upon the entire globe throughout the error of colonialism.

> The New Testament cannot honestly or correctly be used to promote oppression and persecution of religious minorities. Christians can only oppress religious minorities by deviating from the example and clear statements of Christ and by becoming bad Christians.

Oh. Christianity's two thousand year old history of violence, oppression, genocide, slavery, oppression and exploitation is explained away merely by attributing all of these behaviors to the bad Christians.

Well, if that is the case, that leads to the following conclusion: When Christians are bad, Christians are very bad!

> The same is not true of Muslims in relation to Muhammad. Muhammad, according to Muslims, engaged in a good deal of violence, war, and theocracy, and ordered that “If someone changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” And Muhammad said that he had been commanded by Allah “to fight the people” until they all follow Islam. Again, if you wish, I’ll locate the references.

You are correct in noting that Muhammed engaged in wars and killed people.

God's prophets have a long history of fighting wars and killing people.

Have you read the Old Testament?

King David, a "man after God's own heart", was praised with the following song: Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands" (1 Samuel 18:7).

Yahweh, the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians, was one violent, bloodthirsty god. This is the God which ordered Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites, a genocide which you justify religiously.

In what sense, then, was Muhammed different from the historical norm for the followers of God?

And ... before drawing the "Christianity is a religion of peace" card ... please do remember that Christians have killed millions more people than the Muslims.

Christians have followed the Old Testament example very well.

The Jews, Christians and Muslims were all violent and bloodthirsty in their behavior. Don't you see ... violence is a behavior which all three religions have in common.

“Americans are such bloodthristy, violent people that I am quite certain that they are capable of committing such an act. Adolf Hitler was a Christian, a child of civilized Europe, and it seems like his followers are alive & well in the USA”.

“God help up if you and Robert Spencer and America's other "little Hitlers" ever gained political power over the United States.”

“You people are murderous thugs. You people are American terrorists. You people are genocidal fanatics."

Substitute every reference to Christian and American there with "Muslim" and Dave Matthews will need to explain why the venomous hatred against Christian white Americans he expresses is acceptable, even though its Muslims who are today not only threatening genocidal jihad against Christians and Jews throughout the world but actually acting on it everywhere, while at the same time Dave Matthews apparently thinks it is unacceptable for infidels to protest, even as Traeh famously does, in all of his posts, in the most gentle and reasoned words possible. Frankly, I admire Traeh as one of the most measured posters at JW.

For Dave Matthews to take issue with Traeh's exercise of consistently measured free speech, combined with Mr Matthews insane, hateful and thoroughly outdated diatribe against "evil Christian Americans" who have created the most envied political system on the planet, which respects women's and minority rights to an historically unprecedented degree, accepts more immigrants from all over the world fleeing tyranny to come here (while the reverse is hardly the case), permit Muslims to establish their mosques here while Muslims grant no such equal rights to non_muslims in Muslim majority countries - just all of it - the whole package - it's all so obvious who is totally unhinged here and full of irrational hatred. Not to mention massive projection.

This amount of insane hatred towards Christian Americans has to come from a Muslim. Not even leftists have that much insane hatred in their bodies.

This obvious Muhammadan posting under the esteemed musician's name demonstrates all the signs of an irrational Muhammadan full of hatred and irrational malice for the infidel. You'll never, ever be able to reason with him.

Dave, some of your points are well made, but you are not addressing the specific points I made. And you are mixing in insults. I will do you the favor of saving you the energy of writing further posts only to have them deleted. Because from here on in I will delete you. As I said, I am interested in dialogue. You are more interested in monologue (rant), than I can tolerate. You may think you are some kind of Rush Limbaugh of the left or something, but I'm just not interested in someone who ignores what I say and responds with rants.

"But Americans are killing Islamic children every day in Iraq. That might (possibly) explain why so many Muslims are learning to hate us."

Where the hell have you been for the past 4 years? Muslims have been indiscriminately blowing up other Muslims by the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds - Sunnis blowing up Shias and then Shias rounding up and torturing and executing Sunnis adding up to thousands upon thousands of Muslims killing Muslims in the most disgusting and brutal and indiscriminate ways for 4 long years now.

And no one - certainly not the likes of you - ever blames them for it at all. You're friggin sick in the head. Go ahead and make a case for that while you blame Americans for it. I'm dying to hear your sick rationalization for that kind of Muslim on Muslim carnage that Americans are losing their lives trying to prevent while they can't figure out who is friend and who is foe.

"Eh ... Treah, you can love all of these other religions and still remain a bigot filled with prejudice and irrational fear against the Muslims."

Eh - no Muhammaden - you can't. The definition of a bigot is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ".

In case you can't read, what that means is that a person who is say, a Christian, but is tolerant of others who are different than him - say Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Mormons and Sikhs and Amish and agnostics and atheists and so on, but who makes an EXCEPTION in his tolerance for Muslims, for the precise reason that Muslims are notorious and proven BIGOTS - in the real sense of the word (meaning intolerant of anyone by Muslims) - is NOT A BIGOT.

Get it?

Someone who is tolerant of every other tolerant person on the planet EXCEPT the one intolerant group n the planet - IS NOT a bigot.

Muslims, on the other hand, are intolerant of EVERYONE BUT MUSLIMS.

That makes Muslims the premier bigots on the planet.

Again - Get it?

Not tolerating real bigots does not make one a bigot. It's those who don't tolerate anyone but themselves (that would be the Muslims) who are the bigots.

Comprende? I realize this may well be above your intellectual capacity to grasp but I emphasize it because there appear to be a great many morally retarded people like yourself out there in cyberspace who seem to be struggling with this fundamental concept.

Caroline (sorry - I forgot I was posting anonymously in the last several posts at 7:20 and 7:26).

Dave: "Are you using the same sort of reasoning which Hitler used to convince Germans to hate all of the Jews?"

On the contrary Dave - you're using the same fucked up reasoning that allowed so-called civilized people to stand back while the Nazis exterminated the Jews. At the time, some people apparently couldn't tell the difference between good and evil. Some things haven't changed. Or has it escaped your notice that there are still some people hell bent on exterminating the Jews?

Hmmm - I wonder who might that be? And same as back then, I wonder who might be enabling them?

Sorry, Caroline. If you request it, I'll let him start posting again. And if you prefer I'll also turn off comment moderation (comment moderation means I see all comments before they are published, so there is a delay) so you can have a more rapid fire back and forth. Let me know.

I started comment-moderation so I could keep the frothing fellow out without having to delete him repeatedly. I've left most of his comments here intact, but he was such a ranter and purveyor of insults that I felt he had to be stopped from continuing.

Traeh - no. It's fine. I totally understand where you're coming from. He completely ignored your well reasoned responses and responded with the usual tu quoque, whitewash of bloody Islamic history and imperialism, refusal to understand the difference between the Old and New testaments, and even refusal to acknowledge that it was the evil Christian Americans who defeated Hitler. He is indeed a hopeless ranter and I have no problem with you deleting his comments! (I may have been wrong about him being a Muslim, however. Could well be a rabid, self-hating, western useful-idiot leftist). Plus, I have no idea how insane the deleted comments might have been either - pretty insane, I'm imagining.

I guess I deleted the final three or four of Dave M.s comments. I've left about eight of his comments here undeleted, for all to see and judge for themselves. (All the other deleted comments on this site, by the way, were deleted only because people had posted their email addresses in them, so I deleted them to protect privacy.) I don't mind some ranting, but the ranter has to have the capacity once in a while to shut himself off and listen, too. Dave M.'s reasoning and listening seemed short-circuited by the intensity of his hatred.

With jihad being committed around the world. Its amazing that anyone can hate Christianity more than Islam. I do find it ironic that someone that hates religion, especially Christianty calling others hateful bigots.

Hi Richard,I tried to publish both your pending comments; for some reason, the blogger software only published one. I'm afraid the other comment you wrote seems to be lost. Maybe I'm not supposed to try to publish more than one comment at a time. Apologies. Next time I'll publish one at a time and I expect they'll all get through. - Traeh

Un-real!! What is REALLY scary is that if lefty loons like good ol' Dave ever get into power. Hell, he wants to go ahead let Muslims have Europe. Good call Dave. I love how you have on your homepage that you refuse to hate anyone. LOL, and you call Traeh ironic???? Classic lefty hypocracy at it's finest.

I admire your rational and calculated responses to good ol’ Dave. While he immediately resorted to personal attacks, you refrained from doing the same. I think you were correct to cut off the troll. He obviously had NO INTENTION of rational discourse, which unfortunately seems to be a growing number on the left side of the isle. He called you ironic, yet on his own home page he states that he “refuses to hate anyone”. LOL. The hypocrisy is astounding. Just some observations from a guy who got in on the “debate” a little late.

I suspect that "David Mathews" is none other than the felonious "Rev." Jim Sutter, whom Robert Spencer referred to in this piece some days ago. Spencer wrote there that Sutter is

"a somewhat pathetic character who, according to this website [www.exposingsutter.blogspot.com], was ordained by mail-order, is a convicted felon, claims to have degrees he doesn't have and honors (including the Navy Cross) that he has not received, and who traffics in libel with relish."

From what I have seen of Sutter's work, his pattern is the same as that of "Dave Mathews." Both claim to be Christians defending Islam, and both at the drop of a hat rabidly slander opponents as bigots, hate mongers, racists. If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating about "David Mathew's" wierdly indiscriminate attacks, check out his many comments under Derbyshire's recent review of Robert Spencer's new book. Mathews is someone quite happy to fire his slanders indiscriminately into a crowd.

Richard, thanks, it's appreciated. Let's see what happens. Interestingly, the inflow of volunteers has definitely slowed. For the first eight days or so, we were getting 6 or 7 per day. Lately we are down to about one or two per day. Not sure we'll be able to cover the whole Senate, since currently we are only up to 61 volunteers, and some of those will be covering representatives, not senators. Anyway, seems it might be a good idea to wait for the mailing at least till after Labor Day (September 3) when Congress gets back from its recess. So far, all the staff people in congressional offices I've called have told me that book packages definitely do get through security, though it could take a week or more. One office estimated it receives a few books a month from constituents. I have to contact the Capitol Hill police to get packaging advice.

No launch date yet. We still need more volunteers. I've been posting the call for volunteers at some other websites besides Jihad Watch, but so far haven't gotten many replies.

This Saturday, when Little Green Footballs opens registration (I hope they will open it) I'll join LGF and start posting the invitation on their comments threads. If THAT doesn't bring in a new flow of volunteers, then I'll start thinking about setting a mailing date even though we don't have the whole Senate covered. (I'd say we have about half the Senate covered, because many of the 81 volunteers are going to send books not to the Senate, but to representatives in the House. For example, Florida is going to send two books to senators, and six books to representatives.

A hint with the open LGF reg is that they seem to open in around 1000pm EST. That would be the best time to catch it. I got banned earlier this year so I cant do it. Just be warned, its a good site but some of the regulars are rather thuggish in their behavior. quite hypocritical as well in attacking some people for commetns while allowing the same type comments to pass by unnoticed. I will say that since I was banned, they have hardened their attitude towards Islam. Thats a positive sign. I guess you cant ignore the Islamicfication of the West forever. If you do get in, tell them Elric66 said hi. :-)

Dear Mr Lewis, just a tech point but you dont give any other contact means -- Best to put a title in the "title" section, between the tags title./title in the html of your pages. (can't post the proper title tags to this blog.)

Its ok Traeh, Im not worried about it. I do find it ironic that their views on Islam has drifted more towards my views since the banning. Its a good site with alot of good information. Its the few bullies on there that bring it down. Just be careful if you comment on there because it really doesnt matter what you say, if they like you they will keep quiet, if not, they will demand you get banned. Honest to God's truth.

Congrats on getting registered, I know Charles doesnt make it easy though I can understand why.

LGF is treating me ok. I was posting the call for volunteers on one thread per day at LGF. Did that for about three days, and then on the third or fourth day, Charles Johnson felt that was enough, I guess, and seems to have removed the post. Or at any rate I couldn't find it where I thought I posted it, nor could I find it on the two adjoining threads, so I'm pretty sure Charles removed it. I guess his permission to post the call for volunteers only extended for a few days. So I stopped posting the call for volunteers at LGF, since I thought maybe I'd get banned otherwise.

Hi Richard,I don't know if you already know this, but at LGF the comments threads have a new rating system -- other commenters can give your comment a plus or a minus, and the pluses and minuses are automatically added into a total. The last time I posted the call for volunteers, the post did get a -1.

So one person complained, at least in that sense. Don't know if that person also emailed Charles. The days before that though, the call for volunteers was getting positive ratings -- I recall one day I think it got a 2.

The only comments that get lower than -2 or higher than 2 are usually Charles' own comments, which I've seen get 4 one time, 7 another time. So, I guess not many people commenting at LGF are using the new rating system, or not many are using it very often anyway.

I'm posting the call for volunteers at a site called jihadchat.com, and that seems to be helping, though the inflow of new volunteers is still too slow. I found a Catholic forum website, and I'm going to start posting there today. I'll look for other forums, but I think maybe it's getting time to wind this up and set a date for mailing, if we continue to get new volunteers as slowly as we are now getting them (maybe 2 or 3 a week).

You will find LGF to be a bit schizo at times. They call themselves a mind mentality and they are correct. One of the reasons I got banned was because I would call for banning Islam in the West. In all honesty, its the only way to save the rest. They got all pissy about it. Im reading their thread on the school banning Halloween and changing its lunch so not to offend Muslims. They are ranting about it. They dont seem to like Islam in that thread. LOL

But what do they expect? As the Muslim population grows, the more they will see this. They cant have it both ways.

Anyway, I did think you would spark more interest with the large traffic you get there. If I wasnt banned I would have spoke up for you.

My order is on the way. I apologize for taking so long. It seems that my ordered something and for some reason, changed the e-mail account to her account. Anyway, it will probaly be mailed out a day or 2 late. It will go to Martinez. The governer would have been nice, but he doesnt vote on US policy unfortuantly. When you send out the cover letters, will they include the proper mailing address to the representative?

Im looking forward to mailing it out and thanks again for starting this project. A very noble cause. Take care.

No need to apologize Richard, I'm just happy you are participating in this. You were the first to sign up!! A day or two late in mailing will work out just fine.

I just sent out the sample cover letter to all the volunteers. If you didn't receive it I'll be glad to send it again. Let me know. The cover letter will not have your senator's address. In case it helps, here it is:

I got the e-mails Traeh. Thanks again for running with this cause. I also liked the idea of alerting the media on this. How much of the MSM will report it remains to be seen. If you havent allready been suggested, calling in to talk radio would be a good idea I believe. Both local and national.

I sent the package. They said 2-3 days and since Mon is a holiday, Tuesday at the latest. Was I suppose to contact someone to let them know its on the way? Anyway, hope you are enjoying the day. Talk to you soon.

BTW, Im at work so if you email a response, I wont get it till tonight.

As for calling and letting the politician's office know the package is coming, I've been thinking about sending all the volunteers an email suggesting that. Not sure it's the best idea for me to ask volunteers to do that, but I'm thinking about it.

Never hurts to ask. I will do that. Im also going to make a list of talk radio hosts so we can put it up for the people that sent books and DVD's to contact.

Rush has an audience of 22 million. If he is kind enough to mention it, the main stream media can not ignore it. Just think if even 10 percent of his audience decides to read the book or buy the DVD, thats over 2 million people that might "get it". Notifying the local media might not be bad either.

Ill start compiling an e-mail list for talk radio. Ill try to get it done by tomorrow. Hopefully we will get a blub over the airwaves.

Oh and just to let you know, Roger Hedgecock has his own show in San Diego. He fills in for Rush alot when he takes a day off. I remember him filling in one time and he talked about Muslims using a public classroom as a prayer room or something like that. It seems he holds a great interest in stories like this so may explain why I got such a quick response. Again, congrats and let me know if you got a reply from anyone.